Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ARE CONSUMERS SOVEREIGN? No. Because with large corporations we need via-negativ

    ARE CONSUMERS SOVEREIGN?

    No. Because with large corporations we need via-negativa in courts to be able to correct bad behavior. And the state (politicians) are too easily (and frequently) bought. Furthermore they are too economically illiterate to comprehend the choices, and left-economists too dominant as consultants. (Obama only asked left wing jewish economists: Krugman Stiglitz etc).

    P-Constitution restores the courts as a market for defense of the commons. P-economics restores the financial assets made possible by fiat currency to the state (people), while still permitting bankers, thereby splitting the consumer credit economy, the medium term economy, and the long term economy, to the consumer, business banks, and actors on behalf of the treasury, so that commissions are possible but profits more so, and vast sums can be put to work in the world. As such we WEAPONIZE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

    This is important. P-constitution weaponizes the economy for american (western) interests as have the Chinese at the cost of the major banks (JPM, GS, Citi, HSBC etc).

    If the People insure the investment then the people obtain the rewards of their risk.

    For big thinkers this means that we can drive the investment chain further into the future with heavier capital investment using the state, the financial sector can industrialize the application of whatever opportunities those technologies and benefits that can arise. The consumer sector can (interest free) seize the gains. And the proceeds can be directed to commons, so that the work week can be reduced and the working mother population reduced to produce more offspring. (one of the investments needs to be artificial wombs it seems.)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-15 15:06:00 UTC

  • WE CAN LEARN SOMETHING FROM THE SOVIETS – BUT NOT THE COMMUNISTS —” (with iron

    WE CAN LEARN SOMETHING FROM THE SOVIETS – BUT NOT THE COMMUNISTS

    —” (with irony) Today’s Youth explains that the economic failures of communism didn’t have much to do with the Soviet Union’s demise.”—Steve Sailer @Steve_Sailer

    The Soviets used the fact that Russians had been serfs only decades before – and most still lived like serfs – and migrated them to a militarized labor force – saving the cost of market prices for labor, redirecting that savings to the funding commons.

    Then the people adapted to incentives: black markets in all. They reverted to serf behavior: minimum production.

    But Soviet education, science,and commons production were far ahead of USA’s.The error is probably on both sides in that the market and private production are optimums for the middle and up,and non-market for physical commons better for working class and down: serving each other.

    We (economists) know perfectly well why the socialist and communist systems don’t and can’t ever work: (a) incentives produce declines in production in exchange for increases in corruption free riding and rent. (b) economic calculation of investment is impossible. ( c) “Humans”.

    We can end the monopoly(equality) presumption of the economy. Historically we used barbarian > “slave” > serf > freeman > citizen > sovereign, as progressions of market independence (not power). We don’t think of these as different economies, but they were. We need 3+ economies.

    We’ve tried to force too many people at the bottom into the middle class because that was the reason for european success – culling the lower classes. We’ve bred and imported vast underclasses undermining european market majoritarianism. And we’ve recreated demand for “serfdom”.

    There are plenty of people who would exchange voting rights for economic dependency and some sort of equality while maintaining access to the goods and services produced by market goods.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-15 08:51:00 UTC

  • EXPLANATION OF THE SUCCESS OF THE WESTERN ORDER by Bill Joslin (important) (riff

    EXPLANATION OF THE SUCCESS OF THE WESTERN ORDER

    by Bill Joslin

    (important) (riffing of post shared below) (note the multiple dimensions common in propertarian analysis)

    1) Production Distribution: Whereby the square root of the population accounts for 50% of productivity

    (thanks Heavens Wolves for these connections).

    2) Lower Power Distance = Greater Chance of Trust.

    Power distance index: whereby some people have a predilection to trust immediate leaders (personally known) , other are amiable to trust leaders at high distance (impersonal).

    3) Lower Power Distance = Greater Agency

    Hierarchies that “chunk” into smaller units and delegate power (agency) into the smaller chunks, while maintaining accountability (risk) for the outcome, recursively maintain lower power distance relationships across a larger organizational structure.

    4) Lower Power Distance = Easier to emulate those we trust.

    Lower power distance afford lower members the opportunity to emulate leaders which they have access to (my sargent, my supervisor etc) which increases their agency and calls them forward to become leaders.

    5) Lower Power Distance = Greater opportunity for expression of excellence.

    By chunking, the square root of a smaller group, on the aggregate across many groups, produces more super performers. (a group of nine will have 3 super performers. a group of 100 will have 10 super performers – 10 groups of 9 will have 30 super performers by the standard of a single group of 90)

    6) High power distance = obedience over trust.

    Those with higher power distance preferences, produce larger groups which delegate from one to many (one leader to 100 or 1000 men with no ranks between)

    7) High Power Distance = lower agency.

    They do not capture the square root potential of recursive groups, which mean few super performers are available for emulation – to wit they have little to no proximity or exposure. This reduces their ability to increase agency at the same time, encourages dependence on the leaders (also known as demand for authority)

    8) Western Hierarchies = produce velocity and agency.

    The west, via militias and presumption of individual sovereignty, has allowed low power distance individuals to organize at larger scales. in doing so has captured more benefit from the square root performance distribution. the result has been velocity.

    So now I can make my point:

    9) Western Social Cohesion = via proximity, delegated agency, distributed accountability.

    This structure of chunked groups with delegated agency, bound by accountability, allowed us to emulate and respect our betters and inspires us to become them… at the same time as being able to have a higher resolution (and speed) in applying accountability.

    This becomes of paramount importance in maintaining cooperative class structures. Because class structures are no different from military structures

    Respect and reward where due, disrespect and correction where due.

    HOW DOES INTELLIGENCE ENTER THIS?

    10) Communication breaks down across 2 Standard Deviations. A standard Deviation is 15 points.

    11) Lower power distance, via “chunking” allows for IQ-capture across scales. A general (IQ 145+) communicates to a senior officer (IQ 130+) who communicates to an officer (120+) who communicates to an NCO (110+) who communicates to the soldier (IQ 85+).

    12) High power distance communicates from leader to soldier whereby the leader expects blind obedience and the soldier is unable to understand context for commands. This breeds confusion and resentment whereby the leaders have no respect for lowers and lowers see leaders as tyrants.

    class conflict then ensues.

    13) Organizational patterns: i) Centralized, ii) Decentralized, iii) Distributed

    i) Centralized moves organization toward high power distance relations to reap the benefits of organization at larger scales. (3rd world armies)(herd with a shepard)

    ii) Decentralized preserves lower power distance while scaling to larger scales. (western armies)(pack)

    iii) Distributed attempts to remove the centralized by clipping off leaders (antifa) and in doings reduces itself to “intelligence of the mob” (only as smart as the lowest component) (herd)

    14) Leftist i.e. western liberals, coming from a culture and predisposition of a lower power distance, (distrust power at the more distant levels), attempt to organize themselves in a decentralized manner but can only achieve distribution, eventually devolve into a mob due to the dissonance between their desire for authority and low power distance predilection (from being western)

    That is why socialism/communism may work in China without social de-cohesion (asians being high power distance) and will not work in the west. The outcome results in the distribution of a mob (herd).Updated Jan 14, 2020, 4:27 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-14 16:27:00 UTC

  • THE SUCCESS OF THE WESTERN ORDER In the Western tradition we are all members of

    THE SUCCESS OF THE WESTERN ORDER

    In the Western tradition we are all members of a vast army fulfilling our duties because of accidents of time and space. We all are due respect no matter our rank, as long as we do our duty. We are all due disrespect or even punishment if we do not do our duties. This is how we produced harmony – more harmony than any other civilization in history – while at the same time producing the most adaptive and rapidly evolutionary body of people in human history. We took control of evolution.

    The left is the antithesis of Western civilization.

    Monopoly, equality, submission, dysgenia.

    The herd.

    Separate. Evolve, Speciate.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-14 12:50:00 UTC

  • “… government under p-constitution”— Most people talk about government rathe

    —“… government under p-constitution”—

    Most people talk about government rather than law and economics because they understand the triviality of decision by majority (voting).

    But the solution to ‘government’ isn’t government it’s law so that any government can succeed dependent upon the scale of the polity.

    And once we fix the law, we easily fix the government. And then rest of the solution to the present era is mostly economic.

    Our government arose in an era of private capital, and we have preserved the maximization of private capital BEYOND its capacity to produce returns.

    Just as scientific investigation has gone from individuals in workshops to small industry to major industry to requiring multiple governments to fund it – so has every other aspect of ECONOMIC investigation.

    Once money became shares of stock in the economy (that’s what money is), then we were freed from the problem of hard currency.

    But we retained the financial institutions, and the ‘limited’ incentives of institutions.

    And we retained treasuries and governments that exploited private sector gains, rather than produced investments that private sectors cannot. In other words, we made the government irresponsible – when it is the biggest investor in an era where returns require larger and large capital investments.

    Worse, we let the means of distribution of liquidity (maintain the money supply, suppress interest rates, and encourage spending, by borrowing from the citizen’s future productivity in hope of generating greater returns), intermingle interest on business production, profits from business dividends, and returns on speculative investment (stock market), with consumer spending – thereby creating a vast indusry of rent seeking on consumer interest.

    Worse, we let the academy sell worthless unwarrantied diplomas on a scale embarrassing even to the church’s selling of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins. So between 100K debt for a useless education that serves no other purpose than to achieve what IQ and personality tests would provide any business for a pittance; claiming we need immigrants for academic labor so that universities can pay pittance wages to immigrants for what amounts to clerical work and manual labor; flooding the market with worthless degrees and even more worthless ‘research’; and the interest on that academic debt; the interest on homes artificially inflated; the payment of urban rents artificially inflated; the payment of interest on automobiles made necessary by postwar failures of planning, and we see that TRILLIONS – not billions but TRILLIONS of dollars are extracted from ordinary americans, impoverishing anyone who isn’t involved in the rent-seeking scams, such that they cannot afford to produce children.

    So THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOVERNMENT. It is the law and the economy, that permits the industrialization of parasitism on a scale never imagined in history other than when the priests of the ancient world threatened the peasantry with damnation if they didn’t provide them with luxurious standards of living by hard manual labor.

    So, the problem is reorganizing the financial system so that the THEFTS are no longer possible. That is how we will correct ‘what you all feel is wrong’ with the world.

    NO OTHER PERSON has provided this explanation or this means of restoration of western civilization by the total extermination of any and all who engage in parasitism upon the people.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 17:17:00 UTC

  • Combining IQ and Personality

    —“The neuroscience here is way above my pay grade, but I assume that as the neurocognitive basis of IQ is understood, the understanding of what we know as g will be elaborated.”— Charles Murray @charlesmurray

    1. Correct but the opposite, via-negativa: The neuroscience is trivial. The causes of defect in intelligence are almost limitless. It’s not so much that we need to understand intelligence (g), it’s that we need to understand why defects in intelligence are so common.

    2. AFAIK, (g) is the most accurate measure in psychology, and stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social sciences. The problem with testing is casting (g) separately from personality traits (which it is), and therefore not ALSO testing for trait-conscientiousness.

    3. If we test intelligence, and the Big5 traits together we see that success (wealth) is determined MORE by trait conscientiousness than by intelligence, and that intelligence increases income only because it grants access to problems of greater complexity. Intelligence REDUCES ERROR in complexity.

    4. As such ADAPTABILITY (success) consists of applying trait conscientiousness and trait intelligence to exploit opportunities at one’s optimum of complexity. This means ‘the bell curve’ of overlapping bell curves from low IQ/conscientiousness to high IQ/conscientiousness.

    5. There are plenty of people who are high in both intelligence,high in conscientiousness, and high in agreeableness and therefore low in competitiveness. So once we stack the priority of these traits in the context of a given economy and rule of law, sortition is obvious.

    6. Furthermore, once we combine all 5/6 traits we see that personalities cluster around three archetypes: female mother(teach),ascendant male(experiment), and established or dominant male(defend).

    7. We combine IQ with Big5 we find that the only problem is isolating IQ from the other personality traits. If combined, we find that Conscientiousness almost exclusively determines success, and IQ determines complexity of occupation and degree of error detection.

    8. There are 80+ factors but they scale together, with the most dominant being sexual differences in brain organization (F:lateral-general vs M:longitudinal-special), and acquired skills(gc) vs pure ability(gf) – (g) measures how they scale together.

    9. We’ve tried every variation with extraordinary experimentation and continuous rotation and adaption to change in vocabulary and knowledge (psychometricians). The result is always the same: everything scales together with (gf) declining with age, and (gc) not (or compensating).

    10. The test(s) yield(s) an almost infinite set of numbers. But aside from verbal and spatial-temporal, and the obvious gender bias in that dimension – they all scale together. Thats why they report on the one number (g) and it’s distribution (verbal-spatial).

    11. Again, the evidence suggests that by combining intelligence and big5 we would get even higher prediction because, Conscientiousness, Disagreeableness, and Aggressiveness (dominance) or lack of it, explain what IQ does not: how we COMPETE when USING intelligence.

    12. IQ is the most studied, most empirical, most accurate, and most consistent subject in psychology. The 60’s and 70’s were the scientific dark ages as the pseudoscience of marxism and sophistry of postmodernism had their largest affect on soft sciences.

    13. You can only disagree if you’re trying to redefine intelligence as other than access to complexity in time. It determines whether we are Helpless, Dim, Uncompetitive, Ordinary, Cunning, Smart, Competitive, Innovative, or Revolutionary. So demonstrated intelligence depends upon complex context.

    The world is simple – if and only if you use enough dimensions of measurement.    

  • Combining IQ and Personality

    —“The neuroscience here is way above my pay grade, but I assume that as the neurocognitive basis of IQ is understood, the understanding of what we know as g will be elaborated.”— Charles Murray @charlesmurray

    1. Correct but the opposite, via-negativa: The neuroscience is trivial. The causes of defect in intelligence are almost limitless. It’s not so much that we need to understand intelligence (g), it’s that we need to understand why defects in intelligence are so common.

    2. AFAIK, (g) is the most accurate measure in psychology, and stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social sciences. The problem with testing is casting (g) separately from personality traits (which it is), and therefore not ALSO testing for trait-conscientiousness.

    3. If we test intelligence, and the Big5 traits together we see that success (wealth) is determined MORE by trait conscientiousness than by intelligence, and that intelligence increases income only because it grants access to problems of greater complexity. Intelligence REDUCES ERROR in complexity.

    4. As such ADAPTABILITY (success) consists of applying trait conscientiousness and trait intelligence to exploit opportunities at one’s optimum of complexity. This means ‘the bell curve’ of overlapping bell curves from low IQ/conscientiousness to high IQ/conscientiousness.

    5. There are plenty of people who are high in both intelligence,high in conscientiousness, and high in agreeableness and therefore low in competitiveness. So once we stack the priority of these traits in the context of a given economy and rule of law, sortition is obvious.

    6. Furthermore, once we combine all 5/6 traits we see that personalities cluster around three archetypes: female mother(teach),ascendant male(experiment), and established or dominant male(defend).

    7. We combine IQ with Big5 we find that the only problem is isolating IQ from the other personality traits. If combined, we find that Conscientiousness almost exclusively determines success, and IQ determines complexity of occupation and degree of error detection.

    8. There are 80+ factors but they scale together, with the most dominant being sexual differences in brain organization (F:lateral-general vs M:longitudinal-special), and acquired skills(gc) vs pure ability(gf) – (g) measures how they scale together.

    9. We’ve tried every variation with extraordinary experimentation and continuous rotation and adaption to change in vocabulary and knowledge (psychometricians). The result is always the same: everything scales together with (gf) declining with age, and (gc) not (or compensating).

    10. The test(s) yield(s) an almost infinite set of numbers. But aside from verbal and spatial-temporal, and the obvious gender bias in that dimension – they all scale together. Thats why they report on the one number (g) and it’s distribution (verbal-spatial).

    11. Again, the evidence suggests that by combining intelligence and big5 we would get even higher prediction because, Conscientiousness, Disagreeableness, and Aggressiveness (dominance) or lack of it, explain what IQ does not: how we COMPETE when USING intelligence.

    12. IQ is the most studied, most empirical, most accurate, and most consistent subject in psychology. The 60’s and 70’s were the scientific dark ages as the pseudoscience of marxism and sophistry of postmodernism had their largest affect on soft sciences.

    13. You can only disagree if you’re trying to redefine intelligence as other than access to complexity in time. It determines whether we are Helpless, Dim, Uncompetitive, Ordinary, Cunning, Smart, Competitive, Innovative, or Revolutionary. So demonstrated intelligence depends upon complex context.

    The world is simple – if and only if you use enough dimensions of measurement.    

  • COMBINING IQ AND PERSONALITY What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied,

    COMBINING IQ AND PERSONALITY

    What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied, most empirical, most accurate, and most consistent subject in psychology? The 60’s and 70’s were the scientific dark ages as the pseudoscience of marxism and sophistry of postmodernism had their largest affect on soft sciences.

    We combine IQ with Bi5 we find that the only problem is isolating IQ from the other personality traits. If combined, we find that Conscientiousness almost exclusively determines success, and IQ determines complexity of occupation and degree of error detection.

    There are 80+ factors but they scale together, with the most dominant being sexual differences in brain organization (F:lateral-general vs M:longitudinal-special), and acquired skills(gc) vs pure ability(gf) – (g) measures how they scale together.

    We’ve tried every variation with extraordinary experimentation and continuous rotation and adaption to change in vocabulary and knowledge (psychometricians). The result is always the same: everything scales together with (gf) declining with age, and (gc) not (or compensating).

    Well that’s because you’re trying to redefine intelligence as other than access to complexity in time. This determines whether we are Helpless, Dim, Uncompetitive,Ordinary, Cunning, Smart, Competitive, Innovative, revolutionary. So demonstrated intel depends upon complex context.

    The test(s) yield(s) an almost infinite set of numbers. But aside from verbal and spatial-temporal, and the obvious gender bias in that dimension – they all scale together. Thats why they report on the one number (g) and it’s distribution (verbal-spatial).

    Again, the evidence suggests that by combining intelligence and big5 we would get even higher prediction because, Conscientiousness, Disagreeableness, and Aggressiveness (dominance) or lack of it, explain what IQ does not: how we COMPETE when USING intelligence.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 03:25:00 UTC

  • COMBINING IQ AND PERSONALITY What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied,

    COMBINING IQ AND PERSONALITY

    What are you talking about? IQ is the most studied, most empirical, most accurate, and most consistent subject in psychology? The 60’s and 70’s were the scientific dark ages as the pseudoscience of marxism and sophistry of postmodernism had their largest affect on soft sciences.

    We combine IQ with Bi5 we find that the only problem is isolating IQ from the other personality traits. If combined, we find that Conscientiousness almost exclusively determines success, and IQ determines complexity of occupation and degree of error detection.

    There are 80+ factors but they scale together, with the most dominant being sexual differences in brain organization (F:lateral-general vs M:longitudinal-special), and acquired skills(gc) vs pure ability(gf) – (g) measures how they scale together.

    We’ve tried every variation with extraordinary experimentation and continuous rotation and adaption to change in vocabulary and knowledge (psychometricians). The result is always the same: everything scales together with (gf) declining with age, and (gc) not (or compensating).

    Well that’s because you’re trying to redefine intelligence as other than access to complexity in time. This determines whether we are Helpless, Dim, Uncompetitive,Ordinary, Cunning, Smart, Competitive, Innovative, revolutionary. So demonstrated intel depends upon complex context.

    The test(s) yield(s) an almost infinite set of numbers. But aside from verbal and spatial-temporal, and the obvious gender bias in that dimension – they all scale together. Thats why they report on the one number (g) and it’s distribution (verbal-spatial).

    Again, the evidence suggests that by combining intelligence and big5 we would get even higher prediction because, Conscientiousness, Disagreeableness, and Aggressiveness (dominance) or lack of it, explain what IQ does not: how we COMPETE when USING intelligence.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 03:20:00 UTC

  • The Queen is not pro EU. She’s Accommodating the government because she’s pro pr

    The Queen is not pro EU. She’s Accommodating the government because she’s pro preserving the monarchy until this tragic experiment with marxism, socialism, feminism, multiculturalism, and democracy fails – which is happening hard, and right now.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-11 21:02:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216103081949179905

    Reply addressees: @TruthRespecter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216102614028472320

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216102614028472320